On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:04 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:33:18 +0900
夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato(a)yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> Considering the frequent calls of "Gnome 3 has failed at its task" or
> the "GUI has failed if the user must ____" makes me wonder: Where is
> the task definition or specification against which the implementation
> has failed?
>
> "Doesn't live up to my expectation" is very different from
"Doesn't
> comply with spec" and both are different from "Is a bad design".
How about a spec then of what Gnome3 was trying to achiece, and how
about those who like it telling us how Gnome3 achieved those things?
And this is precisely my point. At the moment criticism and defense both
seem a bit aimless because we aren't seeing any references to the
interface research someone said happened, interface specifications or
even a concept discussion/summary about what gnome-shell was supposed to
achieve. It was a serious undertaking, so I'm certain they had goals
which were at least clear to someone at some point.
So far I haven't been able to locate whatever dialogue was had withing
the GNOME dev team about the new interface design; I've looked, just
obviously not hard enough or in the wrong places. I'll find it
eventually when I have time, this issue will someday deeply affect my
customers, so this is important to me.
As far as smoothly integrated introductory first-run interface tutorials
or whatever, I strongly suspect that the angst had to this point over
the limited discoverability problems some perceive will prompt a
pleasant adjustment in the nearish future -- but I've been wrong about
these things before.
-Iwao